08 October 2008

If Sen. Obama Does Not Want To Take Away Guns (As Biden Says) Then Why Is ISRA Issuing Warnings?

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) knows something about Sen. Barack Obama, who now has a slight lead in polls leading into the U.S. presidential election. It makes you wonder what Sen. Joe Biden was thinking when he claimed that Sen. Obama has no plans to take away anyone's shotguns.

For me, I have issues with the writers at the Huffington Post. Frankly, I'm not sure what they've been huffing lately, but the very suggestion that democrats have never tried to take away anyone's firearms is more than laughable.

Once again, Ms. Swenson, you have committed a gross error of fact. But then it was an opinion piece, right? Masquerading as news?

Sen. McCain has never been strong on the 2A. But the alternative in this election, based on history, is far worse. ISRA has a rundown on Sen. Obama's gun ban past, if there are still any doubts. It is rich. It is full of fact.

Here is the partial text of the announcement:

"One of the most blatant lies ever to come from a politician's mouth," is how the ISRA is characterizing a recent statement by U.S. Senator Barack Obama. Speaking in the latest issue of "Field & Stream," Obama claims that Illinois sportsmen know him as an advocate for their rights. On the contrary, Obama's voting record while a state senator clearly indicates that he has nothing but contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner.

"Any sportsman who counts Barack Obama as one of his friends is seriously confused," said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "Throughout his tenure in the Illinois Senate, Obama served as one of the most loyal foot soldiers in Mayor Daley's campaign to abolish civilian firearm ownership. While a state senator, Obama voted for legislation that would ban and forcibly confiscate nearly every shotgun, target rifle and hunting rifle in the state. Obama also voted for bills that would ration the number of firearms a law-abiding citizen could own, yet give a pass to the violent thugs who roam our streets. And, inexplicably, Obama voted four times against legislation that would allow citizens to use firearms to defend their homes and families."

"Let us also not forget that Obama served as a director of the Joyce Foundation," continued Pearson. "While on the Joyce Foundation board, Obama funneled tens of millions of dollars to radical gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center."

"If Senator Obama considers his legislative record and his philanthropic endeavors to be acts of advocacy on behalf of sportsmen's rights, then I submit that the Senator is seriously confused as well," asserted Pearson.

"Nobody knows Obama's record on guns better than I do, and it's rotten to the core," said Pearson. "I've been involved in Illinois politics nearly as long as Obama has been alive. In that time, I have never encountered a legislator who was more hostile towards or more disinterested in sportsmen's rights than Barack Obama."
This two-faced approach in politics is business as usual. For firearms owners, I view it as in-defensible. Released on Sept. 24 of this year, the ISRA news release, excerpted above, is worth passing on.


Anonymous said...

I am not going to pretend that Obama is an NRA poster child, but don't forget that Obama represented one of the most liberal districts in the Chicago area.

There are times a politician should stand up for principles even against their constituents, but for the most part your job is to represent the people who elect you, much like a lawyer representing a client. His constituents in Illinois were clearly VERY anti-gun, and he voted according to their wishes. Is that so suprising? He is a politician, after all.

In the office of president, we will all be his constituents, whether or not we vote for him. Given the SC decision in Heller (Obama as a lawyer is MUCH more likely to respect SC precedent than McCain), and the clear legislative trend at the state level toward gun rights and concealed carry, I feel comfortable that with Obama as president my Ohio CCW is not at serious risk.

I know you focus your blog on firearms, and that's why I like it, but I can hardly accept someone as smart as you, Brent, is a 2A-only presidential election voter. Perhaps you agree with McCain/Palin across the board, and I respect that, though I disagree.

But, if you can intellectually imagine for the sake of argument that you are way more in agreement with Obama on pro-choice, foreign policy, tax policy, etc., would you actually vote for McCain on 2A alone??

I just can't do it. Perhaps my above Obama gun theories are wishful thinking, but I am now 100% Obama all the way - 60% because I'm for Obama, and 40% because I'm against McCain/Palin.

Much respect to you, sir, and best regards,
A., Esq.

Brent Greer said...

A, thanks for writing.

In this blog I don't talk about religion or abortion, for they have no relevance regarding 2A. So I will not comment on my personal opinion regarding the latter.

Regarding foreign policy, Sen. Obama is relying on Sen. Biden for that. Again, Sen. McCain is not my favorite, but his foreign policy approach is far superior to what I have heard from Sen. Obama. On tax policy, they are about even, except that Sen. Obama is playing fast and loose with semantics in promising increases taxes on capital gains. First of all I don't think it will pass. Secondly it will have no impact on the wealthy, as he says it will. The wealthy do not pay capital gains taxes now because they utilize IRS 1031 tax-deferred exchanges. So any increases will be meaningless. Those increases will be visited on the middle class -- a situation which the middle class he professes to protect does not yet understand. It is a "word-ploy" to buy votes.

Yes this is a journal that focuses on the 2A. And on that issue, Sen. McCain stands ahead of Sen. Obama. I don't pretend to know what will happen on the election, but I know who will likely be better in protecting every American's firearms rights.

Anonymous said...

But the question was, for the SAKE OF ARGUMENT, assume a hypothetical voter's policy preferences favors Obama. Fears about weakening 2A trumps all?

Brent Greer said...

Ummm...for many blue collars voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, yes it does. Just ask them!

That's how John Kerry lost a couple of key counties in Ohio in 2004. Factory workers who couldn't bring themselves to vote for him when it came right down to it...all over the 2A.

Its an individual choice. I'm not making your choice for you. That is for you to decide. But you should not dictate to others how they should vote, right? For some it is choice that is their key issue. For others it is charter schools. For others it is the Second Amendment. For others it is national security. For others it is gay marriage and civil unions.

Many in this nation, daresay even a majority in the United States, tend to have one single issue that overrides them all when making the decision which lever to pull or button to push in voting booth. Most of us look at the whole package, but a majority I believe have one "hot button" issue that drives us.

For me it is the 2A. Because it is the one civil right that protects -- defends may be an even better word -- all the others.

As always, thanks for writing!